Search This Blog

Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

The Myth of the Violent Singaporean Protestor

In the ISD Intelligence Service Promotion Ceremony on 15 April 2009, Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, Mr. Wong Kan Seng said that they would implement the recently passed Public Order Act "firmly" to deal with those "intent on disrupting public order".

But what does he mean by disruption of "public order"? Prior to asserting that they will deal firmly, Mr. Wong paints a picture of public disruption when he said, "We have just seen the G20 protests in London. Thousands of protestors had taken to the streets, with the more violent among them damaging public property and business premises. In Thailand over the last one year, thousands of protestors have caused grave damage not just to physical property, but to livelihoods and the economy of the country as tourists are staying away. We have also seen on television street battles between protestors and authorities, causing injuries to many people and some have died as a result. I do not believe that Singaporeans would want such violence to happen here, and with what we have seen time and again in other countries, it would be naive of us to believe that nothing untoward will happen during street demonstrations".

There has been no such incidences of violence in the acts of civil disobedience in Singapore. In fact, it is the authorities who had upped their notch of violence in countering the these acts of civil disobedience in recent days.

When the Minister said, "In Singapore, it is only a tiny group of irresponsible and selfish individuals who have been pushing this line of civil disobedience. They do not care for the interests and safety of other Singaporeans; they are only interested in themselves", he tried to draw a parallel between the violent protestors of the United Kingdom and Thailand, to the peaceful protestors in Singapore like Seelan Palay, Shafiie Syahmi and the likes. This is highly misleading and regrettable.

Would the Singapore Police Force now acquire (or have they already acquired) 'non-lethal' devices like the stun shield to counter such protestors of civil disobedience? At the Trussco's exhibition of 'restraining devices' held on the same day as the ISD Intelligence Service Promotion Ceremony, Trussco's CEO, Mrs. Tina Wong said that the Singapore Police Force were "a major end user" of the Taser technology.

Amnesty International in providing a sample of manufacturers of exporters of 'non-lethal' devices, which could be used for torture as well, notes that Defenders Network a company based in Alabama, USA, had sold restraining devices such as Electrified High-Voltage Anti-Riot Shields which could emit up to up to 150,000 volts, to Singapore (among other coutries), because as Defenders Network claims, it can "maintain peace and order without drawing blood or endangering lives".

But are such devices really 'non-lethal' and do they not 'endanger lives'? The use of stun shield has resulted in at least one "unnecessary use of force" death in the USA prison systems. And also, there is the tragedy of Harry Landis, the Texas Corrections Officer. On December 1 1995, as part of the training to use such an electric shield, Landis was required to endure two 45,000-volt shocks. Shortly after the second shock, Landis collapsed and died. An inquiry later revealed that "the electric shock threw his heart into a different rhythmic beat, causing him to pass away".

The ability to burst the trigger and send at least 50,000 volts of electricity, which stuns or causes the death of a protestor, even in the pretext of maintaining "public order", is too much of a responsibility to be given to the police; especially based on a mere hypothesis, when there is no recent history of violent protestors in Singapore.

"Where were the Farid Khans and the Salleh Maricans? Why didn't they come?... Because they knew that in an open election - all things being equal - a non-Chinese candidate would have no chance."
Having contested an election as a minority candidate, I am disturbed enough by his comments to write this note. Let me explain why.

Simple answer for PM Lee

I declined invitations to contest the 2011 General Election. This was because I was at a different stage of my life. My children were much younger, I had just come back from the USA a few years before and had to re-establish my career here. I did not know if I had the temperament for public life. These were just some of the reasons why I chose to decline those invitations.

Even in 2011, the pool of people who could qualify for the Presidential race was small.…

The Ministry of Communication and Information (MCI) has taken out a Facebook ad titled, 'Get real about fake news', The ad is taken out after the PAP-controlled Parliament passed the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation (POFMA) Bill, with all opposition Members of Parliament voting against the Bill.

The ad draws attention to the viral hoax that Punggol Waterway Terraces had collapsed. The ad said "the hoax triggered anxiety amongst the residents", and urged Singaporeans to "say no to fake news".

It is unfortunate that a website published such an unverified report, and it is certainly unacceptable that it caused much anxiety to the residents of the development (and to all Singaporeans). The publishers and the editors of the website acted irresponsibly in posting the report of the 'collapse' without proper verification, and no one should make any excuses for them for this.

Lamenting the lack of concentration of brilliance in Singapore, PM Lee Hsien Loong in a IPS dialogue held recently said that he believed in having a certain natural aristocracy in the system (a form of elitism where people are respected because they have earned that) for without that society will lose out. (Transcript of Speech here: http://bit.ly/1JOtiYP)

His views are of course not new and he had articulated them in another Speech in the year 2007, expressing why he believed that Singapore does not have enough talent for two A-Teams (link: http://bit.ly/1NFyA9s).

I am not sure if this view is healthy for Singapore. Why I say that? Let me quote a few persons and articles before I make my point.